Mike Larson Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 On many occasions I have heard Stefan propose the following standard for social interactions: "Treat someone the best you can when you first meet them, after that treat them how they treat you." (or some variation of that) But I'm not sure that this is the best strategy for a person who is trying to affect positive change in the world... and I don't think it often reflects Stefan's observable approach. Perhaps I just don't understand what he is suggesting in practice. And there are specifics that probably need clarification. For instance, I'm not sure how much effort or time constitutes "the first time" you meet someone. It seems to me you would want to account for the fact that sometimes people are just having a bad day, and they need some space or some help getting through whatever is influencing their negative behavior at the time. A kind word or a thoughtful gesture can often influence the other person's behavior in a more positive direction. And even if someone is exhibiting offensive behavior (which cannot be partly explained by unusual circumstances), is the best response to mirror back their own offensive behavior? Doesn't that just tend to make an already deteriorating situation worse? Rather than allowing the negativity to determine the outcome, couldn't we be more effective at spreading truth and virtue by taking the "high road" so to speak? I've heard Stefan do this many times in his call in shows. There are times when a caller will act rather abrasively towards him. And while Stefan doesn't tolerate this behavior (he usually calls it out) he also does not typically respond with the same negative approach. And often he will succeed in bringing the entire conversation to a higher and more respectable level where true principles at least have a chance of being heard and accepted. I think the impetus for Stef's recommendation is an understandable desire for protection from potential abusers. But treating others kindly or with civility does not mean that you need to accept abuse. It is a false dichotomy to say that you can either treat offensive people how they treat you or else you must accept their abuse. If we want to lift people to a higher level of being, I think the golden rule (for all interactions--not only the initial encounter) is a much better standard to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 So if I want someone to have sex with me should I rape them? If I want others to treat me poorly I should treat them poorly? the golden rule would fall to the same issues that you have with the "bronze rule" as you call it, and it also includes the requirement that if someone is abusing you you must continue to treat them the way you want to be treated thus allowing the abuser to take advantage of your kindness and continue to abuse you, often even more. The way I understand what Stef is saying is that you should treat people the best you possibly can when you first meet them and if they reciprocate, thus showing they care about your side of the interaction as well, then continue along that path. But if they do not reciprocate then you are under no obligation to continue putting your best foot forward since they have shown they do not care enough about you to do the same. Sure, everyone has bad days but if I am meeting someone new most likely I'm going to fake it to be polite and second if I can't manage that I would apologize for seeming rude thus showing I care what the other party is feeling/thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Let's treat this squatter the way we want to be treated... http://www.abc12.com/home/headlines/Squatter-refusing-to-leave-home-374815271.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 I think the point is, that we shouldn't have standards for people, independent of their behavior and expressed values. The Golden Rule doesn't quite take this into account. The Golden Rule says "don't hit", but obviously it's not that simple: if someone hits you, you can hit back. You are right to point out that just because someone is abusive, doesn't mean you should be abusive back. But you also shouldn't treat abusive people exactly the same as nice people, otherwise, "don't be abusive" is just a nice thought, it doesn't have any consequences, RIGHT?!?! So, on it's own, The Bronze Rule as you call it, is not precise enough. But Stef's greater body of work fleshes it out in greater detail, so that it should be more clear what is meant.There are stories of Jesus and Buddha I believe, taming the wicked hearts of murderers with their kindness and compassion (Jesus reserved his violent outbursts for the horrible crime of lending money at interest). This sounds nice to a lot of people, that we can turn people away from evil by showing them love, nobly turning the other cheek, but in reality it is a dangerous fantasy of chronic abuse victims - it doesn't mean we "sink to their level" necessarily, but also doesn't mean we reward them with our precious time, energy, love, and empathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Does anyone have a source where Stefan explains this approach of his in more detail? Just from watching Stefan, I think the rule is more about the form of the conversation than the content of the conversation. It doesn't make sense that if someone says something false, that I should then say something false back. But it does make sense that if someone is being careless, ignoring my statements, or otherwise being abrasive, that I am justified in treating like with like. I do not have to refute their false statements more than once; if they ignore me, I can ignore them. If they are abrasive to me, I can be blunt to them. And if they are being careless with their facts, I don't mind bringing up something that I might have heard but not fully confirmed. Why should my standards be pristine, when the person I'm talking to has flies swarming around their arguments? It's harmful to think you have to hold yourself to higher standards than the person you're talking to. They will see it, and exploit, tire, and fool you over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Larson Posted April 8, 2016 Author Share Posted April 8, 2016 @Koroviev - "So if I want someone to have sex with me should I rape them?" You are asking the wrong question if you want to apply the golden rule here. The question is "Would you want someone to rape you?" If you want someone to engage with you sexually, then it is not rape if they do so. The golden rule does not promote rape. Perhaps you were just being facetious. "If I want others to treat me poorly I should treat them poorly?" Do you really want others to treat you poorly? And if you are the type of person who sincerely wants to be treated poorly by others, we should probably be discussing root causes of your dysfunction rather than how to best spread goodness and virtue in the world. "[The Golden Rule] also includes the requirement that if someone is abusing you you must continue to treat them the way you want to be treated thus allowing the abuser to take advantage of your kindness and continue to abuse you, often even more." The Golden Rule is not a "require" anyone to be abused in anyway. I'll give the example of Stefan again. Does he get people on his show who are abusive to him? Of course. Does Stefan ignore the abuse and continue as before. No, he stops the conversation, addresses the abuse, and then moves on if the caller agrees to be more respectful. But I have rarely, if ever, heard Stefan respond in a similarly abusive manner. "But if they do not reciprocate then you are under no obligation to continue putting your best foot forward since they have shown they do not care enough about you to do the same." I agree. You are under no obligation to do anything. You can walk away if you want. There are many things you could do to avoid being taken advantage of that don't involve responding in kind. @shirgall - Here's how I would apply the GR. If ever become the type of person who thinks that I have the right steal someones property, then I hope that the other person will not ignore my aggression. I hope the person will remove me as gently as possible, but with whatever force is required, and point me to other means of getting support (through local charities or what not... and he may even help me himself, but I would not demand it of him). I agree that the GR and any other virtuous approach to social interaction completely fail and are useless if a person doesn't at least first acknowldege the NAP as a basic standard. You have to start with that as a foundation. @RoseCodex - "I think the point is, that we shouldn't have standards for people, independent of their behavior and expressed values. The Golden Rule doesn't quite take this into account." I agree that we should adjust our behavior towards people according their behavior and expressed values. But this does not contradict the GR. See my responses to Koroviev and shirgall for examples. "But you also shouldn't treat abusive people exactly the same as nice people". I agree. But that also doesn't mean that the best thing to do is to act abusively towards them. That's all I'm saying. I think it is better to treat them kindly... and that can mean being very firm in your resistance to their abuse. "So, on it's own, The Bronze Rule as you call it, is not precise enough. But Stef's greater body of work fleshes it out in greater detail, so that it should be more clear what is meant." I also agree with this. But I would go further and say that the way Stefan phrases this particular standard is misleading and is not consistent with how he actually interacts with people. And I think if we want to be effective in spreading virtue and stopping abuse, then we should place more value on what Stefan does, and not what he says (in this particular case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Does anyone have a source where Stefan explains this approach of his in more detail? What Stef describes sounds like 'tit for tat with benefit of a doubt'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 @shirgall - Here's how I would apply the GR. If ever become the type of person who thinks that I have the right steal someones property, then I hope that the other person will not ignore my aggression. I hope the person will remove me as gently as possible, but with whatever force is required, and point me to other means of getting support (through local charities or what not... and he may even help me himself, but I would not demand it of him). I agree that the GR and any other virtuous approach to social interaction completely fail and are useless if a person doesn't at least first acknowldege the NAP as a basic standard. You have to start with that as a foundation. And if you continue to steal, have nothing further to do with you. You forget that Stef also has a rule of "get harmful influences out of your life." You don't believe in the NAP because you steal. You're given a chance and then you are discarded, expunged, scorned, shunned, or (if persistent) worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 @Koroviev - "So if I want someone to have sex with me should I rape them?" You are asking the wrong question if you want to apply the golden rule here. The question is "Would you want someone to rape you?" If you want someone to engage with you sexually, then it is not rape if they do so. The golden rule does not promote rape. Perhaps you were just being facetious. "If I want others to treat me poorly I should treat them poorly?" Do you really want others to treat you poorly? And if you are the type of person who sincerely wants to be treated poorly by others, we should probably be discussing root causes of your dysfunction rather than how to best spread goodness and virtue in the world. "[The Golden Rule] also includes the requirement that if someone is abusing you you must continue to treat them the way you want to be treated thus allowing the abuser to take advantage of your kindness and continue to abuse you, often even more." The Golden Rule is not a "require" anyone to be abused in anyway. I'll give the example of Stefan again. Does he get people on his show who are abusive to him? Of course. Does Stefan ignore the abuse and continue as before. No, he stops the conversation, addresses the abuse, and then moves on if the caller agrees to be more respectful. But I have rarely, if ever, heard Stefan respond in a similarly abusive manner. "But if they do not reciprocate then you are under no obligation to continue putting your best foot forward since they have shown they do not care enough about you to do the same." I agree. You are under no obligation to do anything. You can walk away if you want. There are many things you could do to avoid being taken advantage of that don't involve responding in kind. Yes my first two points were meant to be just silly but I still think they prove my point. "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Suicide bombers are following the golden rule so are people who pick fights. If you are in an abusive relationship it is assumed that you want the abuser to be kind to you so you will continue to be kind to the (following the golden rule). If, lets say, thousands of culturally antithetical people are coming into your home, you would want them to help you if you were in need thus, per the golden rule, you will help them in need. As opposed to helping someone in need until it becomes obvious they are taking advantage of you. It doesn't mean you then have to take advantage of them but rather they have no concern for your needs and desires so why should you continue to have a concern for theirs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 it's like parents and children have an agreement ("contract") to treat each other well, but parents were abusive to the child when he was small (" broke the rules ") then children are not obliged to treat parents well ,when they grow up. If someone isn't playing fair, do you have to play by the rules? I mean being social, helpful etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts